At 5:37 PM +0900 2005-05-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Sure, they _are_ different, in a relevant way---they exist to broaden distribution, including archiving. But I think that in the great majority of cases where random users can just sign up, that is a service to be encouraged. It's not a good idea to put the burden of proof on them, when either the list-owner can be more selective about membership, or they can use X-No-Archive.
The problem here is that Mailman should not be adding an
"X-No-Archive:" header to messages that it is processing. This is something that should be controlled from the perspective of the user, and Mailman should not be stepping on their toes.
Moreover, if Mailman did add such a header, what would happen to
the internal archiving system? Would Mailman ignore the header that it has added while honoring the same header that might have been put on the message by the user?
As a list admin, I can see a strong desire to keep your own
archive, but to want to prevent anyone else from maintaining an archive, at least not without your express approval. Unless, that is, you gateway to USENET news, in which case Google and others have news archives that you could not control and could not even be aware of in most cases. But then if you gateway to USENET news, you should be aware of this issue, and be prepared for what might happen.
Again, I'm not really arguing against the patch. It's the people who might be doing extra releases (Barry and Tokio, right?) or answering the FAQs (Brad and Mark, primus inter pares) who should decide if it belongs in the Mailman distribution.
IMO, the ultimate decision is up to Barry -- it's his project,
and he gets to decide how things go. However, he is currently focusing on Mailman3 right now, and Tokio is the release engineer for Mailman2, and in the past Barry has been open to comments and suggestions from others. So, I imagine he might make his feelings known, but then leave the ultimate decision to Tokio, who would hopefully also take input from others.
However, I don't see that Mark or I would necessarily have any
more weight given to our comments during that discussion as a result of our work with the FAQ and answering the questions. I would hope that we would be heard along with the others commenting on the subject, and appropriate weight would be given to them by Barry and Tokio, but more based on their merits than on the work we do with the FAQ.
There are plenty of other knowledgeable people on mailman-users
and mailman-developers who don't (or haven't recently) done much of anything with the FAQ, and I would hope that their voices would be given as much weight relative to their experience as would ours.
I do advocate some kind of public statement about the policy toward adding new facilities of this kind. One easy one would be "you write the patch, and show that you conform to certain rules such as 'patch defaults off' and 'service respects X-No-Archive as well as conforming to relevant RFCs', and we'll put it in to the next regular release that isn't already in feature freeze."
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. At least, not so far as
guaranteeing that it would be put in the next regular release. IMO, if the patch defaults to off, and the service conforms to the relevant RFCs and BCPs, then I think we should give it serious consideration, but I wouldn't want to guarantee anything more than serious consideration.
Or maybe it's worth encouraging such services, and being more helpful about it.
I would encourage more people to make patches, and to try to be
more helpful about this process in general. But I wouldn't want to make any guarantees as to what would/would not get included -- everything should get the appropriate level of consideration, but no guarantees beyond that.